Kids In Cages...

[carpedm9587]

Yeah - no. We were addressing the current border crisis and you are already well aware that I've conceded that SOME might be truly eligible for asylum - but it is only a tiny fraction of the caravans we're seeing. The crisis is about economic migrants - so you can stop moving the goalpost now.

Then I'm not sure what our problem is. My comment was about asylum in general (not specifically economic asylum) and some of the posts your quoting were for Seer (not you), who made a sweeping statement.

Which I didn't do - so kindly quit addressing me with arguments I'm not making.

Can you point to exactly where I said you did? You seem to be responding to things I said to Seer as if I had said them to you, and to things I had not said.

But they are not - they are trying to get across the border, and either escape detention, of if detained, disappear when released on their own recognizance.

Well...no. First of all, I have not found data on the percentage of those crossing the border who turn themselves in and request asylum versus those who attempt to evade detection. I don't know how we would even know those numbers given our current inability to monitor the border. As for the "disappear when released on their own recognizance, two points. First, the numbers show that the vast majority show up for their appointments. Further, a pilot in which those released were released to a sponsor showed near 100% return - but the pilot program was discontinued. Sounds like it should be started up again. But, better yet, we should put the resources on the border to clear the vast majority of these cases in a matter on a month or so. It will require significant resources initially, but the need will drop off as the message goes back that entry under asylum claims is not a free pass into the country for several years.

Requiring them to petition outside our borders and providing a means to hear and decide those petitions most certainly IS a system - one that's been in place for decades and doesn't require visiting the US border.

Well, on that we disagree. I am 100% behind putting programs in place that provide other application-for-asylum points outside the U.S. border (e.g., at U.S. Embassies, in partnership with other countries) and the "3rd party safe country program is also a good idea.However, I don't believe people arriving at the U.S. border should be turned away for no other reason than they DIDN'T apply at those other places. There are all sorts of reasons why that might happen, especially in truly hardship countries. Someone arriving on the U.S> border and requesting asylum should be duly processed, IMO. Someone who truly qualifies for asylum is not "violating our borders" by coming across the border: the laws allow for genuine asylum seekers to "violate regular immigration procedures" in the interests of personal and family safety.

And we have those systems in place - but these caravans are attempting to bypass them - which you already knew - you're just trying to moralize without admitting that you can't make a case for open borders.

Since I have never advocated for open borders, and don't thin borders should BE open, well set that aside as a non-sequitur. As for the rest, I am pretty sure most of the "caravans" are arriving and being duly processed. This notion of "caravans as invaders" is a Trumpism designed to rally the base. What IS happening is that a lot of families know that, with the current system, they will apply for asylum and be granted entry while they are processed. That gives them a few years to "settle in" and have families and create a more complex situation when their case comes to the front of the line. The solution is to have adequate resources to house/process those entering in a short period, and turning back those who do not qualify.

Yeah, right - if you want it, go look it up. Otherwise, why ask me about it? That you don't see the evidence isn't my concern - and this 'oh, but I can't see it' act is old.

Please point to the place/time where I asked you to provide any information. What I said was I would like to see the specified information (because I have not seen it and have not been able to find it) before I would find the arguments compelling. I said nothing about requiring you to provide it. You seem to have added that to my post - and then gone off on this line of discussion. Since I haven't asked and was not expecting, I'll let you have the last word on that topic.

[carpedm9587]

I find it ironic that you and carp have been arguing about these poor immigrants who are just looking for a better life with Teallaura.

You and Teal have added all of that to my posts. I did not put it there, nor have I made that argument.

Her past and current situation of living in poverty would put even those immigrants to shame. She has been homeless several times, living out of a car, unjustly fired from a job and has several health issues on top of all that. Our country should be doing more to help people like her FIRST and then worry about people from Guatemala. I bet neither you nor carp has ever had to go a day without a meal.

You would lose that bet...

Meanwhile, you are painting a false dichotomy. We are the wealthiest nation on earth and should be able to deal with BOTH the needs of valid asylum seekers and people who are experiencing what you describe about Teal without having to make a choice between them.

[seer]

As for the "disappear when released on their own recognizance, two points. First, the numbers show that the vast majority show up for their appointments.

43 percent of illegal immigrants skip court hearings, 49 percent for minors

rom the 2,680,598 foreign nationals that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released on their own recognizance, 1,320,000, received deportation orders, 75 percent of them (993,593) for failure to appear

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...-49-for-minors

[Sparko]

I feel very sorry for Teal if this is her situation. I had no idea about that and I wish her all the best. I do not change my view on how you should talk and treat about other people based on what you tell. The reason for that is very simple. What I have said goes for all people in need.

I find it a little ironic that you try to change the topic of the debate. Were the questions a bit too difficult to deal with?

So you don't think we should be trying to help our own citizens before allowing illegal aliens to come here and take limited resources away from people like Teal?

[Charles]

So you don't think we should be trying to help our own citizens before allowing illegal aliens to come here and take limited resources away from people like Teal?

Sparko, it is too obvious that you are trying to change focus. I allready answered your question and so did Carpe when he said:

"Meanwhile, you are painting a false dichotomy. We are the wealthiest nation on earth and should be able to deal with BOTH the needs of valid asylum seekers and people who are experiencing what you describe about Teal without having to make a choice between them."

Like to get back on topic?

[Sparko]

You and Teal have added all of that to my posts. I did not put it there, nor have I made that argument.



You would lose that bet...

Meanwhile, you are painting a false dichotomy. We are the wealthiest nation on earth and should be able to deal with BOTH the needs of valid asylum seekers and people who are experiencing what you describe about Teal without having to make a choice between them.

Then why are there still people starving and living in squalor in our cities? Why is LA covered in tents and San Francisco in human waste? Why do we have people living in fear of gangs in our cities?

[Sparko]

Sparko, it is too obvious that you are trying to change focus. I allready answered your question and so did Carpe when he said:

"Meanwhile, you are painting a false dichotomy. We are the wealthiest nation on earth and should be able to deal with BOTH the needs of valid asylum seekers and people who are experiencing what you describe about Teal without having to make a choice between them."

Like to get back on topic?

It is obvious that you are trying to avoid my points.

[Cow Poke]

Then why are there still people starving and living in squalor in our cities? Why is LA covered in tents and San Francisco in human waste? Why do we have people living in fear of gangs in our cities?

And, aren't the same liberals in charge of those cities and regions who want to "solve" the problem of immigration?

[Cow Poke]

It is obvious that you are trying to avoid my points.

[Teallaura]

Er, guys, while I agree we need to tend to home before tending to other people's homes, I'm not a great example. I was homeless twice but neither time for very long and while I lost a lot of possessions, that's not the end of the world.

I still think the best argument is that when we provide the economic/political escape valve, we are insuring that the countries that use that valve will not seriously address their internal problems, thereby condemning both the current and subsequent generations to continued poverty and desperation. There's no rational reason that Central and South American nations can't be prosperous - other than it's easier to let us handle the malcontents/protesters/poor than to fix what is wrong.

[Sparko]

And, aren't the same liberals in charge of those cities and regions who want to "solve" the problem of immigration?

Yep. If liberal plans work so well, why is California a cesspool of poverty and filth? There is no bigger separation of wealth and poverty than in places like LA. You have super rich Hollywood liberal movie stars living up in the clouds crying for compassion of the homeless and protesting the 1% (which they are!) while the homeless live mere miles from them in tents, having to poop on the street and eat out of garbage cans.

And instead of helping these people who are already in the country, they want to let in MORE from Mexico so they too can live on the streets and eat garbage. Yay Liberals. Such compassion.

[Cow Poke]

Yep. If liberal plans work so well, why is California a cesspool of poverty and filth? There is no bigger separation of wealth and poverty than in places like LA. You have super rich Hollywood liberal movie stars living up in the clouds crying for compassion of the homeless and protesting the 1% (which they are!) while the homeless live mere miles from them in tents, having to poop on the street and eat out of garbage cans.

And instead of helping these people who are already in the country, they want to let in MORE from Mexico so they too can live on the streets and eat garbage. Yay Liberals. Such compassion.

It's kinda like somebody with a mouthful of meth teeth volunteering to be your dentist.

[Charles]

It is obvious that you are trying to avoid my points.

I have already answered. And please read what Teal wrote afterwards.

You lost track here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post654671

Feel free to answer the questions and adress the points if you can.

[Sparko]

I have already answered. And please read what Teal wrote afterwards.

You lost track here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post654671

Feel free to answer the questions and adress the points if you can.

When you actually deal with my points, then I will continue our discussion. Go back to that post you linked and try again.

[Charles]

When you actually deal with my points, then I will continue our discussion. Go back to that post you linked and try again.

That contains my answers, points and questions. I have no problem leaving it there if you cannot answer or do not wish to continue.